Johnny Simmons

I didn't even realise that I went this crazy with talking Oscar this past season (all entries), it implicitly suggests that I was invested in the season - which I wasn't, but ah well. I do feel the slightest bit saddened that the season is over. Oscar's like one of those friends you can't stand to talk to often, but you'd implode if they died. So, ahoy - final final predictions.

       

Picture: The King’s Speech

Director: David Fincher for The Social Network

To tell you the truth, I wish I had the guts to predict The King’s Speech for both honours – but I’m hoping me not predict it will somehow make it not happen. Not because I’d mind Hooper winning that much (I won’t) – but I could only fathom the uproar that will occur if he does win the Oscar. And, I like the guy – don’t want him mauled. Either way, though, I’m fine. Both films and directors would appear somewhere in my top 10 – so I don’t mind what happens either way. (I’m still hoping for a delicious upset via The Kids Are All Right, but yeah, I’m fine either way.)

          

Actor: Colin Firth in The King’s Speech (alternate Javier Bardem in Biutiful)

Actress: Natalie Portman in Black Swan (Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right

So, Colin and Natalie? Je ne sais pas. It’s a tossup (in my head at least) for the acting race – but I’m willing expect my favourite to lose. Now that I look at it, though, I want Annette to win even more (apparently it IS possible). Remember she and Colin were in Valmont way back when. Wouldn’t it be nice to see them win Oscars together?

Supporting Actor: Christian Bale in The Fighter (Geoffrey Rush in The King’s Speech)

Supporting Actress: Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech (Alternate: Melissa Leo in The Fighter)

So, will HBC finally reach the podium 18 – or is it 13 – years after she deserved to? It depends on who you’re talking to pinpoint the precise year she deserved it, but she has before. Not for her Queen Mother, but do I care? No. I could be wrong, perhaps me wanting it means it won’t happen, but I’m sticking to that prediction. And, I suppose a Bale win is inevitable – which is fine. That pipedream for Ruffalo died long ago (though, I’ll admit I’m still pretending he’s winning in my head).

Original Screenplay: David Seidler for The King’s Speech (Alternate: Christopher Nolan for Inception)

Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network (Alternate: Michael Arndt, Jon Lasseter et al for Toy Story III

People are still predicting an Inception upset – which I swear would make me so infuriated I’m actually worried it’ll happen now. Look, fine I’m not a big Inception fan – but there’s such a colossal difference between originality and writing. The award seems skewed because it says “original writing” and not “screenplay from material previously unpublished”. Ah well, we’ll see what happens... I say it’ll be the two frontrunners for the Picture category with Sorkin and Seidler triumphing. And, since Cholodenko has no luck – I’m fine with these two choices.

Art Direction: The King’s Speech (Alternate: Inception)

Makeup: Barney’s Version (Alternate: The Wolfman)

Costume Design: Colleen Atwood for Alice in Wonderland (Alternate: Jenny Beavan for The King’s Speech

Now that I think of it, Art Direction could be a huge toss-up. Sure, The King’s Speech and Inception seem like the frontrunners – but there’s no telling how voters will respond to the obtrusiveness of Alice in Wonderland, and I sort of don’t see True Grit going home empty handed either. Aaargh, then there’s makeup which I’m really just guessing about – and them, Costume Design where I want Colleen to win because she’s the best and I want her to get her third statue, and then there’s Beavan who was snubbed for such great work in the 90s and did such good work on The King’s Speech which I’m not-so-secretly hoping will sweep the ceremony just for the fun of it. Decisions, decisions....

Sound Editing: Inception

Sound Mixing: Inception (The King's Speech)

I decided to go two for two with Inception here, because the sound branch seemed sort of insular in choosing The Hurt Locker last year. And, though, it’s possible they just thought it deserved both – and though Inception is nowhere near frontrunner status – it’s a possibility that seems logical. Now, The King’s Speech (or more realistically True Grit) could upset in the mixing category – but I’ll say no.

Cinematography: Danny Cohen for The King’s Speech (Alternate: Wally Pfister for Inception)

Editing: Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall for The Social Network (Tariq Anwar for The King’s Speech)

Visual Effects: Inception (Alternate: Alice in Wonderland)

Okay, I think this is the point where I’m getting ridiculous. Honestly, I can really see Cohen upsetting for photography in the same way that something like The Golden Compass upset for visuals or The Bourne Supremacy upset for sound. And, then I could see the obvious happening and Deakins winning or Pfister winning. Ugh, this is only a conundrum because I’m over-thinking it all – and I know I’m over-thinking it, but I can’t help over-thinking. This reminds me why I opted to show no interest in Oscar last year. I think the editing prize is assured, though. No? And the visual prize seems assured, but I think I’ll laugh if Alice in Wonderland (undeservedly, I’d admit) wins.

Original Score: Alexandre Desplat for The King’s Speech

Original Song: Alan Menken for “I See the Light” from Tangled

We all know how surprising the music branch can go when it comes to choosing winners (case in point: 2005, an exercise in strangeness). Will Desplat and Menken – the deserving – win? Will Zimmer and Rahman – the loud and the obvious – triumph. Will we go even crazier and reward the laidback ones like Reznor and Newman? I’m sticking with the first options.

Foreign Language Feature: Incendies (Alternate: In A Better World)

Documentary Feature: Inside Job (Alternate: Waste Land)

Animated Feature: Toy Story III (Alternate: How to Train Your Dragon)

I have a feeling Incendies is going to win, if only because most people who’ve seen the films admit that it’s terribly mawkish. I have that sort of little faith in the voters, although you’d think them having to watch the films in succession mean the best will win. I can’t be certain, Incendies just seems like a typical choice even if I want to say In A Better World. I’d sort of love Dogtooth to win, just because this guy here loves it – and it’ll probably make him happy. I’m sticking with Inside Job for documentary – just because.

Short Film (Animated): Day & Night (Alternate: Let’s Pollute)

Short Film (Documentary): Killing in the Name (Alternate: The Warriors of Qiugang)

Short Film (Live Action): The Confession (Alternate: God of Love)

I’m honestly stabbing in the dark here, and I sort of love it. I always do zero research for these categories and just choose based on name of film and directors. It’s always fun, but don’t take me seriously here. I have absolutely no authority.

                        

I contemplated doing a top ten lists of 2010 films which would have sufficed as proof of my favourites, but I’m not if not set in my ways and that seems much to imitative of the Academy’s recent return to nominating ten films for the honour – so I opted not to (not that this is actually cause for concern, but allow me my pretentiousness) – I went for an even more atypical top 7 instead. By now you’re probably tired of me telling you that 2009 had better films to offer us than 2010 and if I were to line-up my two top ten lists of the two years three 2010 films would make it into the combined ten. That doesn’t lessen my appreciation for the films I like this year – they’re still good. I haven’t found anything to fawn over embarrassingly like Bright Star or pontificate on continuously (and superfluously) like An Education but I do have one film at the top and a trio immediately after that’s difficult to separate. And the also-rans are in no way substandard. (All Awards)

When I think of my first impressions of some of these films, the results are kind of interesting. But, movie loving is a strange thing. Some of these films improve significantly on multiple viewings (The King's Speech, Scott Pilgrim vs the World) and some of them lose a bit of their lustre (The Social Network). The film I've seen most this year is The Kids Are All Right - and each time I see it, something new appears for me to love. Ah, le cinema....

(unless otherwise indicated, click on the photos for reviews)

                  

In its way Agora is just the sort of film that makes sense on my list of personal favourites. I’m as keenly aware of its issues as any of its detractors – well, except for Jose, even I can’t defend it from the tongue-lashing he gave it – but Amenabar’s pseudo-historical saga appeals to me not only on a social level but artistically. True, its technical achievements are impressive, and maybe there’s something in it being the first A (well, A-) that I gave this year. At its strongest moments, though, no other drama this year – not even The Social Network – is able to marry intelligence with entertainment so sumptuously. And, I’ll always credit it for making me appreciate the ellipse which I was never half as interested in when I was actually studying Technical Drawing.

I’m anxiously waiting what Michôd’s next cinematic encounter entails. Perhaps, Animal Kingdom shouldn’t work as well as it does – and a throwaway description of it I heard (an Australian, small-scale GoodFellas) made me wonder if it’s all really as rote as that. Still, when it comes to being seamless in blending acting, direction and writing Michôd’s work here is astounding. It approaches the bleak issues with a freshness – that’s not delusion – and manages to suggest interesting things about potential archetypes with smart profundity.
                        

                            

Detractors seem taken with the notion that the work is not laudable because the story is a normal suburban one with lesbians – no kidding. The very point of The Kids Are All Right IS the rote ways of suburban life, Paul is a mere plot point (albeit a nice, juicy one) and Choledenko knows to create the tone that makes the film dependant on its familial issues and not its LGBT themes. It’s a bit insular to boil it down to holding merit for the way that that ends up being so progressive; its strongest asset is its non-judgemental attitude toward its entire cast. It’s the sort of film that’s a bit like an arbitrary voyeuristic glimpse into the lives of a group of flawed individuals.
                                                                 

                                             

When you get past the fact that The King’s Speech isn’t what you expect it to be, the tale that Hooper crafts is comforting in its stylish sedateness. The amalgamation of everything that makes it thoroughly British (even if in an ostensibly formulaic way) is stimulating to watch as Hooper and Seiberg use the conventionality to create something subtly imaginative. I don’t care if it’s technical aspects have (unfortunately) turned into something of a joke recently, but it’s the sort of subtle camerawork and editing that’s always impressive and what’s more it emerges as one of the most well paced cinematic experiences of the year.

                                                               

Rabbit Hole

One of the strangest things about Rabbit Hole is how much we manage to learn in a mere hour and a half. Neither Lindsay-Abaire nor Mitchell is willing to waste time on the extraneous and they make each minute contribute to a consistent movement forward that’s deliberate (though, never forced) and organic always in its progress. I’d never call it overwrought because despite its emotive potential there’s a sort of sheen preventing it from being too interested in the hypersensitivity of dealing with death and more involved in the detachment Becca and Howie feel from the world. Mitchell echoes it in his directing, and Lindsay-Abaire ensures that it wraps up concisely – but not with an obtrusive ribbon to tie it off.

                       

No movie this year puts a perpetual smile on my face as much as Scott Pilgrim vs the World (yes, I’m in lesbians with it). It’s continually daring without any arrogance about it, and in its somewhat single-minded desire to entertain us it never robs its characters of their integrity. A videogame geek, I am not, but I feel affronted on its behalf for being relegated to mere “dabbling” in technological innovations. Wright’s dedication to story and characters triumphs over a number of the more non-comic films of the year, and he approaches his subjects with a dearth of pretentiousness that even more of them could benefit from.

                            

Amidst the barrage of Oscar prognosticating and choosing sides that’s happening online, it’s difficult to remember where your allegiances lay in the first place. The staunchest of supporters for The Social Network supporters have turned into a mean crowd, but that won’t make me waver in my appreciation for it. Rabbit Hole wins in the succinct department, but The Social Network emits a smoothness to it that’s never smarmy – no matter. Fincher’s directing style is not exactly personal, but his intent on coalescing technical aspects with the insularity of his protagonist is impressive. Add that to the fact that for every pithy bit of dialogue that makes you start, there’s an equally intelligent scene that makes you think.

                        

FINALISTS: The Ghost Writer (review) tops my other list, and true there’s a delicate divide preventing me from surrendering completely to it. Despite the slightest of reservations, though, Polanski’s control over the story is excellent and a seamless screenplay merging with a talented cast makes for a rousing, intelligent but always entertaining thriller; Somewhere is a more dubious choice – ostensibly, I suppose – but I might even intimate that it’s my favourite piece from Coppola. It depends resolutely on her ability to retract the sometimes officious hand of the director and let the film just exist in its natural state culminating in an indolence that’s not overly stylised but still sophisticated and most important emotionally motivating.

                          

SEMI-FINALISTS: They’re all worth your time for various reasons like The Fighter (review) for its ultimate focus on familial relationships and issues of self all under the smokescreen of a boxing film; Greenberg (review) for being so continuously smart in examining the misanthropic tendencies of a man simultaneously hateful of the universe and desperate for appreciation; Nowhere Boy (review) for managing to have that many obvious clichés in its pockets but still – in the end – managing to be refreshing in its focus not on Lennon but a troubled teenager; Let Me In (review) for taking the horror genre and moving it from the obtrusive to the psychological all the while never exploiting its young leads.

#14: Cairo Time (review)

#15: Shutter Island  (review)
#16: The Runaways (review)

#17: How to Train Your Dragon (review)

#18: Blue Valentine (review)

#19: Black Swan (review)

#20: Get Low (review)

#21: Green Zone (review)

#22: Night Catches Us (review)

#23: Toy Story III (review)

#24: Nanny McPhee & the Big Bang (review)

#25: Winter’s Bone (review) 

  

Nomination Tally (24 Categories, some miscellaneous some not)
127 Hours  1 nomination
Agora 10 nominations (1 Gold, 3 Silvers)
Alice in Wonderland 1 nomination (1 Gold)
Animal Kingdom 9 nominations (3 Silvers)
Black Swan 6 nomination (1 Gold)
Blue Valentine 1 nomination (1 Silver)
Brooklyn’s Finest 1 nomination
Burlesque 2 nomination (1 Silver)
Country Strong 1 nomination (1 Gold)
The Fighter 3 nominations (1 Silver)
For Colored Girls 3 (1 Silver)
The Ghost Writer 7 nominations (2 Golds, 3 Silvers)
Greenberg 1 nomination
Green Zone 1 nomination
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows 2 nominations
Inception 4 nominations (1 Silver)
The Kids Are All Right 10 nominations (4 Golds, 1 Silvers)
The King’s Speech 9 nominations (1 Silver)
Let Me In 2 nominations
Mother & Child 2 nominations
Nanny McPhee & the Big Bang 1 nomination
Never Let Me Go 2 nominations
Nowhere Boy 2 nominations (1 Silver)
Rabbit Hole 11 nominations (5 Golds, 1 Silvers)
Robin Hood 1 nomination
The Runaways 1 nomination (1 Gold)
Scott Pilgrim vs the World 9 nominations (1 Gold, 2 Silvers)
Shutter Island 7 nominations (3 Golds, 3 Silvers)
The Social Network 13 nominations (4 Gold, 1 Silver)
Somewhere 2 nominations
Tangled 1 nomination
True Grit 1 nomination
           

There, free at last – I am – my 25 favourite films of 2010. What do you think of my ragtag collection of picks? Snap decisions: how was 2010 in film for you?

I felt quite a disconnect with the Academy’s decisions for the screenplays – I’d have nominated only three of their ten choices (my own nominees here), sometimes you get the feeling that voters aren’t willing to believe that a fine film could have writing that’s less than top-notch, although I’ll applaud them for not nominating Black Swan – a good film, but not a screenplay worthy of “best-of” citations. Ironically, that nomination would have been better than one, perhaps two, of the actual nominees. But, digressions... let’s take a look at the field.

The logic that because deems Toy Story III an adaptation is ridiculous – being a sequel does not make it an adaptation. All five of the nominees are in consideration for Best Picture, but this is essentially looking like a one-horse race.

NOMINEES: 127 Hours (Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle) / The Social Network (Aaron Sorkin) / Toy Story III (Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich) / True Grit (Joel Coen and Ethan Coen) / Winter’s Bone (Debra Granik and Anne Rossellini) Prediction: The Social Network Alternate: Toy Story III

I have it as an alternate, because it’s the most likely upset – but it’s unlikely either way. Sure, it’s the final branch of the trilogy, so there would be goodwill, but it’s not happening. And, really, I don’t mind. With neither Rabbit Hole nor The Ghost Writer in consideration I’m fine with The Social Network taking the prize.

         

This one is more interesting. I’m not the biggest fan of Inception, although I can appreciate that it has its fan, but I find it difficult to understand how it won the WGA (over Cholodenko and Blumberg).

NOMINEES: Another Year (Mike Leigh) / The Fighter (Paul Attanasio, Lewis Colich, Eric Johnson, Scott Silver and Paul Tamasy) / Inception (Chris Nolan) / The Kids Are All Right (Stuart Blumberg and Lisa Cholodenko) / The King’s Speech (David Seidler) Prediction: The King’s Speech Alternate: Inception

Seidler wasn’t eligible for the WGA, and in a perfect world it’d be between he and Cholodenko/Blumberg. Well, actually, in reality The Kids Are All Right would win this prize easily, but The King’s Speech is not a terrible alternative. It’s the likely winner here – I don’t anticipate a Nolan upset, but if one were to occur it’d be this.

        

It’s so hard choosing “best” scenes, or even “favourite” scenes. There are some films that are great, but unfold so organically it’s difficult to cite a single scene as “best”. Last year, I noted that my favourite scene of the year came from An Education, which happened to be my favourite film of the year (COMPLETE LIST). Even though I’d say last year had more to offer in overall film quality, this year seemed to have the more obvious showings of good scenes. So, my top ten goes like this (the 15 finalists HERE)

 

(click on the photos for reviews)

     

There are those rare moments where Amenabar seems to lose sight of his general objectivity, but at the height of its success Agora really is an objective attempt at the historical epic. The destruction of the library emerges as the centrepiece for the film in more ways than one. On the technical aspect, the scope of it is peerless. The production design, visual effects and cinematography are all essential in establishing that pandemonium as Hypatia and her lot make their attempts to salvage the “important” works. Then, there are the smaller thematic arcs – like the parting of ways between Davus and Hypatia. It’s the solitary moment where Weisz’s Hypatia is not calm, elucidating just how much she feels for knowledge. It’s a perfect coalescing of technical and emotional aspects and easily Amenabar’s strongest portion of Agora.

One of my sisters said, of this scene, that it’s so good because each of the five actors is doing some of their best acting – and it’s true. It’s Annette’s scene, yes, but it’s not hers alone. From the onset of Nic’s attempts to be chummy with Paul, you already get the feeling that he’s a bit uncertain of himself and Huthcerson and Wasikowska’s facial responses to the opening of “Blue” is perfectly played. And, then, there’s Julianne – so guilty, and so vulnerable. The thing, it’s not just the acting (and writing) though – editor Jeffrey Werner and Cholodenko know just when to cut the shots and it all leads into Nic’s discovery of the hair. Everything works just brilliantly.

From the moment that Elias Coteas’s policeman raps on the door in Let Me In, with Owen inside you know that things are going to go awry. Reeves is a master of atmosphere, which is his most significant calling card in making the tension so palpable in Let Me In and the entire ensuing scene works because of the richness of the atmosphere. That doesn’t lessen the profundity of Kodi-Smit McPhee’s work, though. It’s his strongest scenes, and although it’s mostly a reactionary one he’s excellent. He has the difficult task of portraying that sort of bathos you’d expect from a child in this situation, and his aghast response to the Police’s death is one of genuine fear and sadness, and it’s all aided by Giacchino’s fine score.

Is it possible to resist the epic brilliance of that final battle in Scott Pilgrim vs the World? It’s the climax of the film, the one those videogame geeks (the film’s ostensible target audience) would have been waiting for, that scene that’s unashamedly indicative of its roots and you sort of get the feeling that Wright, too, can’t wait for this moment to toss out all his tricks. And, usually, you’d think that tricks don’t necessitate goodness, but it’s all part of the atypical way of Scott Pilgrim vs the World – the tricks are an essential part of it. Watching how Scott approaches the single situation (before and after) and seeing how his approaches lead to the domino effect of reactions from the characters is fine example of Wright ensuring that his moral themes hit home without being maudlin. Perfect.

I still maintain that Shutter Island would have been a much better film (albeit an unsatisfactory adaptation of the novel) if it ended here. Even if you’re not aware of what is going to happen, you know that the film is building up to a specific moment – this being it, and everything good about Scorsese and DiCaprio (as far as Shutter Island is concerned) occurs here. The atmosphere is potent, but not overwrought and Michelle Williams so just excellent opposite DiCaprio here. It’s a true credit to DiCaprio that he manages to make this moment play out without undermining the necessary emotional connection.

Then there’s our first meeting with that “awesome sperm donor”. Me and my mind can’t help going to dirty places when they start in on their tongue story (but they’re begging for it) and like everything in The Kids Are All Right we’re being prepared for every major plot point. Joni and her latent resentment of Nick, Paul and Jules potential bonding the vague discomfort of everyone – especially Paul. It’s one of the reasons I singled this out as the best ensemble, they’re always playing off each other – and so excellently, too.

Because The Social Network is so inextricably linked with the personality of its protagonist – ostensibly cold, vaguely mysterious, sometimes confusing – it’s essential that Garfield’s Eduardo is there to offer a semblance of balance. That’s why, despite the fact that Eisenberg is the film’s best actor, the film’s strongest scene (in my eyes) depends on Garfield just as much – more, perhaps. The way that The Social Network is written ensures that it’s all building up to that scene where Eduardo and Mark part ways, and you can’t fault Sorkin for pithy dialogue – it’s required here. There’s something great about that “lawyer up, asshole” line that’s all sorts of awesome.

It’s not that Animal Kingdom is lacking in a wealth of strong scenes featuring the entire ensemble (both meetings in the café, for example) but when I think of the strongest moments in the film I can’t help but return to a moment that should play as just the slightest bit superfluous, but never fails to rouse my attention – Craig’s death. It’s possible that it’s because Stapleton gives my favourite performance of the film that makes me even more appreciative of this scene, but everything leading up to it – Craig’s argument with his friend, his growing paranoia and then the threatening advance of the police is proof not only of Stapleton’s performance but Michôd’s fine direction.

I find it hilarious that my favourite fight scene in The Fighter has little to do – directly – with Micky’s boxing career: Charlene vs the Seven Sisters from hell. The scene really begins at Alice’s home as she and her daughters prepare to wreak havoc on Charlene for derailing their plans with Micky. From the moment they get into that beat-up car you know that what’s imminent will be marked by that deliberate dry humour looming over some of the strongest moments of the film. Amy, so very fearless here, is brilliant as her Charlene clashes with the sisters. Russell is so smart, though, and he knows that the scene holds more importance than just the hilarity to be gotten from the hillbilly antics.

Even though Nicole, easily, gets best-in-show citations in Rabbit Hole, I still like to think of its ensemble as the heart of the drama – which makes that bowling-alley birthday of Izzie such a perfect scene to encapsulate all that I love about the movie. Teller and Oh (both good) don’t show up here, it’s all about the actual family. Blanchard, forever on the sidelines with her subtleties, is so good when she reacts to the gifts and Becca watching Izzie respond is a good example of Nicole being completely in tune with her character’s inclinations. I love that blink-and-you’ll-miss-it bit of conversation that Howie and Nat have (I wonder what their relationship is like) and of course that final blow-up between mother and daughter. Wiest and Kidman are so wonderful opposite each other.

It’s been an unusually good year for the leading men. I look at the Academy’s list of nominees, and even though one in particular sticks out oddly– it’s not a terrible performance. I could easily flip-flop between my actual list of nominees and the six finalists and still be satisfied with whatever top 5 I come up with. This was actually the category that gave me the most indecision in choosing nominees; never has a list of nominees felt so arbitrary, even the winner is debatable. Last year Ben Whishaw in Bright Star was an indisputable winner, but I’d be willing to give any of these five gentlemen a gold star. So, in the face of the generally bland showing of 2010 films it’s nice to see such good male performances.

        
(Click on the photos of the gents for full-reviews of featured film)
         

Coppola is so interested in getting that listless tedium of real life down Dorff is forced to play the part through expressions and not dialogue, and he succeeds impeccably. Coppola’s lucky that he has the sort of open face that’s able to convey the blandest of emotions without making them seem hackneyed, so all those somewhat injudicious close-ups work incredibly well. He doesn’t make Johnny into two irreconcilable characters – the father and the actor – they’re one and the same, both of them hopeless cases so when that emotional breakthrough (breakdown?) comes towards the end it’s not completely unexpected, and not at all forced but it’s still profound and moving. (Highlight: Breakdown)

As the narrative of unfolds, you realise that Howie seems bland around Becca, not because the character is substandard or because Eckhart is not trying hard enough; it’s because Eckhart’s Howie is aware of how tenuous a grip on life his wife has, he’s just making the decision to be silent about it, which is why those looks he steals her way in the first half hour become so important. He’s just as tightly wound, and has even more trouble opening up to those around him because no one expects it of him. That’s why that argument with Becca comes off as more soliloquy than conversation, he has a whole lot of pent up rage inside. That adage of still waters running deep couldn’t be more significant. (Highlight: Walking the Dog)

There are times where’s he’s just a bit excessive with the physical tics, but the moments where he succeeds most are the deposition scenes where he’s able to merge the potentially arcane reasons beneath Mark’s ostensibly reckless behaviour against the somewhat wiser and still very gauche sensibilities of his present day sense. He just might get off with playing up the eccentricities of the character in earnest, because since it’s a real person he has a smokescreen to hide behind but he ultimately wins because he decides to carve Mark’s most piercing moments around more than just those tics, while managing not to let the inevitable vulnerability within become too much of an absolution of his less attractive qualities. (Highlight: “Does that answer your condescending question?”)

Because of the manner in which Seidler opts to establish Bertie’s idiosyncrasies Colin is obliged to characterise Bertie by the relationship he has with those around him. The rapport between he and Rush emerges as most obvious, but three significant moments of his play out opposite other performers. It’s easy to play the psychological motives behind his stutter trite, and Hooper and Seidler are lucky that Colin doesn’t play them as such. You can trace the moment he shuts down opposite his father, or note the self-deprecating way he speaks to his brother or the ways he opens up – or conversely closes up opposite his Queen. He’s anomalous in the way he keeps his emotions close to his chest, but reveals them under pressure – and Firth ensures that the transition between the two is natural. (Highlight: Either A Story for his Girls or A Bedroom Conversation with his Wife)

Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine (as Dean)

Gosling has a natural ambiguity to him that makes him all wrong for the palpable villainy of his role in All Good Things but perfect for the role of Dean here. Unlike Williams the narrative isn’t as interested in his back-story, so it’s up to him to create that impression of a real person with underlying issues – and not just in the more obvious scenes. Thus, the ambiguity ends up working – excellently – to his advantage as he manages to avoid any propensity for playing the character like a villain, instead finding the most sincere emotions in a man who’s sort of drifting through life, but who we don’t loathe. (Highlight: Pleading his case at the film’s end)

FINALISTS: Leonardo DiCaprio brings that same sort of intensity that has defined his recent performances to his Teddy in Shutter Island, but it’s more than an exercise in something he’s already done. For one, he must carry the entire film on his shoulders and he succeeds even when the narrative gets too pulpy; James Franco in Howl; even if you ignore the fact that this is James Frecheville debut, his performance in Animal Kingdom is still something special. Unlike his supporting cast, he must establish his characters through the most tacit of inclinations – and he delivers from that opening scene; this time around with Fuqua Ethan Hawke examines a different side of his range in Brooklyn’s Finest; in the same way that Hamilton avoids the temptation to make Night Catches Us the stereotypical racial drama Anthony Mackie does not give in to the possibility of turning Marcus into a formulaic “angry young man” – he grounds his character in a firm sensitivity that becomes one of the film’s strongest suits; Ewan McGregor doesn’t come off as particularly mysterious but he manages to be something in The Ghost Writer. It’s his film, and though he carries it on his shoulders he does so unobtrusively knowing when to recede for the supporting players to shine but always ready to take control again.

SEMI-FINALISTS: Collin Farrell eschews his most obvious calling cards in Ondine deciding to establish Syracuse with a steady reticence that feels like under acting but isn’t really. He’s not the film’s main enigma, but he manages to be even more mysterious by playing his emotions so close to his chest and still never being disingenuous; I’d give James Franco an A for effort in 127 Hours, simply because you know that he’s doing the best possible job he can with what he’s effort – and you know that he’s relishing it. Sometime he falls victims to Boyle’s own intent to evade the harsher tones of his character but ultimately it’s his performance – and little else – that’s able to evince any semblance of emotion from the stony narrative; Aaron Johnson needs to establish that certainty of charisma in Nowhere Boy without “playing” John Lennon, and he does it with startling adeptness – at least from where I sit. He’s still rough around the edges as a performer, but he (and Taylor-Wood) use that newness to his advantages making Lennon a fine example of someone trapped by his surroundings, but not melodramatically so; Kodi Smith-McPhee is even better in Let Me In than he was in The Road. He’s not the one playing the “old” character, but he imbues Owen with all the emotional complexities that you’d expect from an older thespian and delivers on the facial expressions when Reeves roots the film in the visuals and no dialouge; sometimes you get the feeling that someone else could have done the title role in Baumbach’s Greenberg better, but that doesn’t mean that Ben Stiller isn’t doing good work. He’s slightly unsubtle as we first meet the character, but the rapport he strikes between Gerwig and (especially) Ifans reveal a warmer side to him as an actor (and the character) that’s surprising and impressive; Mark Walhberg in The Fighter

So, apparently on the cusp of the ASC win for Inception it’s turned into the frontrunner for Cinematography.

          

I feel like such a fraud having next to no enthusiasm about the race, so despite the fact that Inception shows up nowhere in my top 12 directors of photography I’d be least interested if it actually wins. Logic dictates that True Grit’s Roger Deakins (who’s been trying for that Oscar for some time) will get his due, but I won’t be surprise if he loses. In fact, my gut tells me that The King’s Speech could very well take this, and I’d be fine since it actually makes my list of nominees – but that could result in a potential bloodbath since everyone isn’t convinced that it’s well shot – and the backlash against it is already deafening. The Social Network is not one to rule out here, either and logically, you have to at least consider the possibility of a Black Swan – a win I’d be on board with. Inception aside (or not, even) it’s a fine bunch of nominees.

NOMINEES: Black Swan (Matthew Libatique) / Inception (Wally Pfister) / The King’s Speech (Danny Cohen) / The Social Network (Jeff Cronoweth) / True Grit (Roger Deakins) Prediction: The King’s Speech Alternate: True Grit

Maybe I’ll change my mind, but I’m going with The King’s Speech for cinematography – which is based, more than anything, on a maddening hunch of mine.

As far as locks go, I don’t think that Inception is as assured of its win here as – say – Avatar last year; but it’s most likely to assume that it’ll win here. Logically, I’d only see Harry Potter being any competition; but AMPAS voters have not always been known for logic and there’s no telling what sort of spoiler Alice in Wonderland could end up being here. Perhaps, a distant second...?

NOMINEES: Alice in Wonderland / Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows I / Hereafter / Inception / Iron Man II Prediction: Inception Alternate: Alice in Wonderland

You know that trend where the Best Picture winner wins editing, I’m often confused by it...but I digress. Owing to the fact that there is nary a stinker in the ten films nominated for Best Picture, the five editing nominees are quite stellar – with the exception of 127 Hours, which is too unsubtle for me to fête. The Social Network wins my own personal competition, and I predict that it’d be the logical winner here.

NOMINEES: Black Swan (Andrew Weisblum) / The Fighter (Pamela Martin) / The King’s Speech (Tariq Anwar) / 127 Hours (Jon Harris) / The Social Network (Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall) Prediction: The Social Network Alternate: Black Swan

I think of The King’s Speech and Black Swan as potential spoilers, although I think the former’s editing is “better” they both have that palpable “edited” feel without being too overworked and Black Swan does accomplish much of its development through its editing, so who knows if a Black Swan surge could occur.

          

It’s weird, I don’t think that 2010 has offered us a slew of that brilliant films (but more on that later) – but it’s only proof that good direction is not synonymous with great films. For me, seven directors ruled this year for me (the five nominees and the two finalists) – and it’s really something a head-scratcher narrowing the seven down to five. But, I must (wails) – here’s who I decided on.

           
(click on the photos for reviews)
       

Lisa Cholodenko for The Kids Are All Right

Like all that wine Nic keeps ingesting, Cholodenko’s work in The Kids Are All Right gets better with time. Even though I’d admit that subtle would probably be the incorrect adjective to attribute to The Kids Are All Right Choledenko’s work is so good here because it’s not officious. Perhaps, because she co-writes it, she’s especially aware of the mood that the script calls for and she directs it in turn with sudden spurts that are not jarring as she establishes scene, character and setting with a style that’s current (though, not quite modernist) and always conscious of the viewer’s attention span, without being pandering.
                           

                                                                                        

There’s something dangerously close to posturing in the almost funereal which Fincher (and company) decide to ground The Social Network, but in all honesty I don’t mind it. It works – brilliantly too, I might add – because Fincher has always been adept at reconciling themes with directorial choices. Just like he was able to discern the appropriateness of the mock-epic style for Benjamin Button he manages a taut, hypersensitivity here that makes more and more sense as this gloomy (but not repulsive) tale unfolds. It’s all part of the wonderful irony (similarly evinced in the script) that this “social” network seems so insular.

                   

Sometimes I wonder if what could be perceived as Michôd’s occasional apathy to the situations affecting his character is a detriment to the overall narrative, but like his protagonist J – an ostensible indifference is not proof of disinterest. It’s difficult to single out key moments and say, “X scene was well directed”, but that’s the way Michôd knows it should be. I’m not a fan of the word, but there's some organic in the way that it unfolds (ironic, considering the very unnatural bloodshed ensuing). More than even Choledenko, I’d say that Michôd is the director this year that seems to hold the best interest of his characters at heart – for better, for worse.

Together with Lindsay-Abaire Mitchell succeeds in turning this story of stagnant grief into a thoroughly cinematic piece. He doesn’t smother us with the eccentricities to convey the cinematic nature but simply lets if flow as naturally as possible. One trap that directors working on stage to screen adaptations often fall into is the tendency is to over-cinematise their films, but Mitchell is shrewder. He doesn’t avoid the narrowness of the theatre but uses that same closeness to create a cinematic perspective of characters bound by their emotions.
                                            

               
                                        

Well, turns out Polanski hasn’t lost it. I wasn’t an unabated fan of The Pianist, and I’m not even an unabated fan of The Ghost Writer but Polanski’s direction – though, not exactly vociferous – is impossible to ignore. He’s a master at thrill, that doesn’t sacrifice cleverness in its quest and The Ghost’s journey unfurls with that same interest in being thrilling, occasionally mocking but always conscious of the story and what’s to come. It’s a prime example of the sort of subtle direction, that’s still noticeable but stands up to more scrutiny on the second and third viewings.
                      

       

FINALISTS: I feel like a right heathen for leaving Alejandro Amenabar (Agora) Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs the World) off my top 5. They work on different genres, but there’s a singularity in what they achieve. Both find their fortes in managing to keep productions that are quite sprawling in check, and managing to make them strangely personal. Amenabar retracts the sprawling Alexandrian tale to something simple, but not slight and Wright ensures that Scott Pilgrim vs the World is consistently bombastic and larger than life but never out of control. Both men are credits to their trade.

SEMI-FINALISTS: it sort of comes off like I hate Darren Aronofsky and his work in Black Swan, I don’t. When I consider the issues I have with its script, though, Aronofsky’s direction becomes even more impressive. All the heights of the story, and the successes of Nina’s insular journey succeed because he’s so in touch with his characters; it’s the same way that Noah Baumbach (Greenberg) and Sofia Coppola (Somewhere) are in touch with their introspective, and vaguely misanthropic male characters. Baumbach must be more palpably prickly, and Coppola must be more reticent in establishing that languor – they’re both excellent in controlling their stories, though; I’m still a bit partial to his Elizabeth I but it’s clear (to me, at least) that Tom Hooper’s work in The King’s Speech is proof that he’s improved. Though the writing is an important part of the equation, the subtly surprising direcotiral choices from Hooper is one of the reasons The King’s Speech seems neither tedious or rote; Matt Reeves must be more deliberate in directing Let Me In, and he succeeds in creating the appropriate atmosphere for the drama that evokes a sad redolence that’s unexpected given the genre and the subject.

HONOURABLE MENTIONS: Martin Scorsese for Shutter Island; David Russell for The Fighter; Floria Sigismondi for The Runaways. They each have one thing in common, they each prevent occasionally humdrum screenplays from subverting their attempts to create good cinema, and ultimately that’s one of the strongest suits of a good director.
       
So, director of the year...? Who'd you choose?

In some ways Aronofksy’s latest reminds me of Avatar, although I was more fond of Cameron’s piece they both are analogous in the fact that they depend on the visual elements and not so much their stories (which aren’t necessarily subpar, just not as key as the optical). Visually, Black Swan is a perfect amalgamation of all things visual and the effects here coalesce beautifully with the cinematography and editing. Sometimes Aronofsky gets the urge to go a bit too pulpy (not always serving the story), but overall it’s a visual triumph. 

         

          

 

As dissatisfied as I was with some major elements of the latest instalment of Harry Potter, I was impressed with the visual work. Like Black Swan, the work here underscores the reality that best visual effects is not synonymous with most visual effects and though there are a number of holes to poke in the story, visually this instalment is as thrilling as any.

Visually, it avoids the most blatant of tricks you’d expect and oftentimes the visuals end up aiding the film where the story fails (the flashbacks scenes with Mal, for example – understated, but jarring). Obviously, the more obvious moments are fine – but the ability to tone down is what makes me most impressed with the work here.

        

        

Scott Pilgrim vs the World

I’d cry anarchy at the Academy’s ignoring of Scott Pilgrim vs the World in this category – but no members of the Academy are listening so I’ll refrain from indulging in yet another tirade, for the umpteenth time. Visuals are so essential to this story sometimes it seems as if the story is the visual or the visuals are the story – it’s all the same, really. It’s all impeccably interwoven, not subtle (it can’t afford to be) but fitting.

         

It’s evidence again of the technical work here being brilliant. The story can be impossibly obviously at times so the visuals don’t overdo. The atmosphere created is palpable and thick, it really is the sort of “visual” film that defines cinema at its most visceral and the way it so seamlessly coalesces with the photography makes me even more impressed.

    

FINALISTS: Agora is so intent on merging all its technical achievements (photography ties in with art direction which is established in the visuals) – the scope of the city created is almost peerless and though it doesn’t use CGI to much effect that doesn’t mean it’s any less visual; Let Me In; Nanny McPhee & the Big Bang come off as synthetic and very “magicky” – but in the realm of all that’s fantastical you sort of get that that’s necessary

         

SEMI-FINALIST: the visuals in Alice in Wonderland are loud and they’re obvious, but sometimes they’re not always serving the story. I don’t really grudge its Oscar nomination, though. Because, as officious as it is on occasion (oftentimes) there’s a meticulousness to its creation that’s laudable.

     

 

The scene that comes to mind immediately, is of course the storming of the temple. It’s absolute chaos and it’s photographed so intimately, just as Davus’ Christian epiphany is framed well. True, it’s a get a bit too obvious when the camera rises to view the world from a distance and there’s just that tinge of beautifully shots for the sake of beautiful shots – but I’ll forgive those occasional extraneous bits.

   

Regardless of the missteps Aronofsky may make I cannot deny the adeptness of the photography. Sometimes you get the feeling that he’s showing off on us, but the fact that he always manages to serve the story prevents me from holding any sort of grudge. In the same way that Agora and its orchestrated stampedes demand astute photography, the dance sequences require the same and we are not robbed of that tenet.

         

I’m still nonplussed as to why its Oscar citation here has caused such a ruckus since it’s still the first technical achievement that jumped out at me (score, costume and art direction included). It’s all part of the entire film’s manner of being paradoxically modern and traditional – simultaneously. The photography is an essential part of its entire philosophy and though sometimes it emerges as just a little too purposeful I’m wary of calling it a fault.

              

                       

              

Like many contemporary films, the camerawork is largely ignored but framing is of exceptional importance here. The revelation of the accident, Howie’s seduction bolstered by Barry White, that beautiful ending – all those pay heavy dues to the cinematography which is always subtle, always understated and lets the screenplay do its job. Proof that obvious garishness is not always the key to good photography. 

                  

                        

            

          

Shutter Island (Dante Feretti)

A bit like an obvious choice, no? Lord knows why it’s been virtually ignored. Even if DiCaprio has been playing in this register for a while, and even if the story is a bit pulpy that opening shot defines it all and it gets better from there. Sure, it’s not as subtle as the sets but – well – that’s the point. And extra points for every scene with Michelle Williams, just beautiful to watch

         

            

            

           

FINALISTS: I don’t know how many times I have (or how many more times I will) call The Ghost Writer sleek, but goddamn the photography is brilliant; Never Let Me Go is photographed so lushly – it’s even more purposeful than The King’s Speech (sometimes annoyingly so) but it’s essential for Romanek’s attempts in condensing the storyline into such a short running time; in all my appreciation for it I won’t be disingenuous enough to call Somewhere a technical marvel but photography is essential in developing that beautiful listlessness of the rich and famous; The Social Network

         

SEMI-FINALISTS: Animal Kingdom; Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows; True Grit; Ondine

  

 

One of the things I noted in my review was just how seamless everything in Animal Kingdom. There’s a gentle irony about the camerawork here, it’s so flawless that you can’t help but applaud it but in its flawlessness there’s a fluidity that might be easy to ignore – which is a shame.

        

        
        

            

The Ghost Writer (Tariq Anwar)

The editing does seem a little lustrous – but everything about The Ghost Writer seems to evoke that feeling of a sophisticated sheen. Polanski loves depending on the technical aspects and it’s the editing that is his biggest calling card in keeping the tone in The Ghost Writer that makes it such a top-notch exercise in thrills.

          

          

               

The Kids Are All Right (Jeffrey Werner)

 

I can’t say I’m surprised this one has gone unnoticed, but even more than Cholodenko’s direction and screenplay the editing in this film is a fabulous example of camerawork enhancing a film. I don’t know if it’s alacrity in trade, or just pure luck but Werner knows just when to cut to what and how to do it. He manages to capture those precise expressions just before they sour – that scene where Nic at the final dinner at Paul’s? The sort of editing that’ll never be recognised by the awards, but screw them. 

                      

Because Rabbit Hole depends so much on the transference of emotion and because there are only ninety minutes to play with the editing is especially important. Its montages don’t unfold as obvious cinematic tricks, and like the film there’s an easiness to it all that is – unfortunately – easy to ignore. When you think of guiding the pace of the story, and of giving emphasis, though – Klotz’s work is palpably good. 

            

             

      

It seems a bit ADD, just like its protagonist and that’s probably the point. The deposition scenes are such an obvious example of him getting a brilliant playing ground and he milks it for all it’s worth getting those precise shots, cuts that supplement Sorkin’s rapid screenplay. Sometimes his choices seem weird, but that’s because there’s SO much going on in this one, watch it multiple and you begin to realise just how seamless the scenes flow into each other.

           

       

FINALISTS: Agora; The King’s Speech; Let Me In; Scott Pilgrim vs the World

SEMI-FINALISTS: The Fighter; Somewhere